📎 Source Note: Transparency is essential in journalism. The facts and figures presented in this article are derived directly from the legal filings in this case. A copy of which can be found at the bottom of this article. We encourage readers to review the primary source document for themselves.

Corporate Greed Case Study: Copsync Inc. & Its Impact on Public Investors

TL;DR Summary: A former professional football player turned licensed financial advisor, Jack Brewer, used his position as a high-level consultant for a publicly traded company, Copsync Inc., to obtain confidential information about its dire financial state. Brewer was explicitly told the company’s plan to raise money was a “death spiral deal” that would tank the stock. In a text message, he ordered his subordinate to “Clear that [expletive]!!” — a directive to sell all 100,000 of his shares just days before the bad news became public. He illegally avoided over $35,000 in losses while the stock price plummeted by 32.5%, leaving ordinary investors to absorb the financial damage. A federal court found him liable for insider trading.

This case is a ghastly illustration of how corporate insiders exploit systemic loopholes for personal enrichment at the public’s expense; continue reading for a detailed breakdown of the corporate misconduct and the systemic failures that enabled it.

Introduction: A Betrayal of Public Trust

In the architecture of modern capitalism, certain figures are held up as aspirational. The professional athlete who transitions into a successful business leader is a powerful archetype, embodying discipline, intelligence, and the promise of meritocracy. But this story is not about that. It is about how that very image of trustworthiness was weaponized to exploit a system designed to protect the average investor.

This investigation centers on Jack Brewer, a man who moved from the NFL to the world of high finance, and Copsync Inc., a public company that sold law enforcement technology. Brewer was a “temporary insider,” granted access to the company’s most sensitive secrets. He used that access not to serve the company or its shareholders, but to enrich himself, acting on confidential information to dump his stock before it inevitably crashed.

This is a case study in corporate misconduct, revealing a system where fiduciary duty is easily discarded in the pursuit of profit.

Inside the Allegations: A Blueprint for Corporate Misconduct

The facts of the case, laid bare in federal court filings, paint a damning and undisputed picture of insider trading. The court’s legal opinion establishes a clear sequence of events where a corporate consultant, armed with privileged information, acted decisively to protect his own wealth at the direct expense of the market. This was not a sophisticated, hard-to-trace scheme. It was a blatant abuse of a trusted position, documented through contracts, emails, and text messages.

Brewer’s relationship with Copsync was multifaceted. Through his firm, Brewer & Associates, he signed an “Advisory Agreement” to provide business development strategy. He also signed a personal “Endorsement Agreement” to serve as a “public facing figure for Copsync.” Both of these agreements contained strict confidentiality clauses, legally binding him to hold all non-public information in confidence and not use it for his own benefit. The company entrusted him with its secrets, making him a temporary fiduciary to the corporation and its shareholders.

Copsync was in serious financial trouble. By 2016, the company was burning through cash and received notice from NASDAQ that it no longer met the exchange’s listing requirements. The only realistic way to fix this was to sell more stock to raise capital. Brewer was aware of this, having been told directly by Copsync’s CEO that the company needed to raise millions.

The critical moment came in December 2016. Copsync’s CEO emailed Brewer confidential documents for a planned securities offering. The materials, marked “strictly confidential, not for distribution to the public,” detailed a plan to sell up to 2 million units of stock. The pricing was set at a significant discount to the market price, and the structure included warrants that would further dilute the stock’s value. Brewer forwarded these documents to his own Chief Investment Officer, who gave a chillingly prescient analysis: “Terms will end up being expensive money—this will be death spiral deal…the common gets flushed into the market on close of transaction.”

Brewer knew the stock was going to plummet. He knew the offering was projected to raise only a fraction of the money needed to save the company from being delisted from NASDAQ. And he knew this information was a secret he was legally and ethically bound to protect.

Timeline of a Betrayal

The timeline of Brewer’s actions demonstrates a clear intent to profit from non-public information. He received the confidential news and acted on it with swift precision before the public had any idea what was coming.

Date	Event	Consequence
Dec. 12, 2016	Copsync’s CEO emails Brewer confidential offering documents revealing a discounted price and a likely “death spiral” for the stock.	Brewer is now in possession of material, non-public information.
Dec. 22, 2016	Brewer is informed by his COO that the offering will only raise $1.08 million, far short of the amount needed to meet NASDAQ requirements.	Brewer’s inside knowledge of the company’s impending failure is confirmed.
Jan. 4, 2017	Brewer texts his COO, Jesse Meehan: “Clear that [expletive]!!” referring to his Copsync stock.	Brewer instructs his subordinate to begin selling all 100,000 of his shares.
Jan. 4, 2017	5,000 shares of Brewer’s Copsync stock are sold for approximately $5,063.	The first part of the insider trade is executed.
Jan. 5, 2017	The remaining 95,000 shares of Brewer’s Copsync stock are sold for approximately $99,114.	Brewer has now fully divested his position based on inside information.
Jan. 6, 2017	Copsync publicly announces the registered direct offering at a price of $0.65 per unit, far below the previous day’s closing price of $1.03.	The secret is out, and the market reacts predictably.
Jan. 6, 2017	Copsync’s stock price closes at $0.69, a 32.5% decrease from the prior day.	Public investors who held the stock suffer significant losses.
Post-Trade	Court documents calculate that by selling early, Brewer received $104,178 instead of the $69,000 the shares would have been worth after the announcement.	Brewer personally benefited, avoiding a loss of $35,178 by trading on illegal information.

Regulatory Capture & Legal Minimalism

This case exposes a core tenet of neoliberal capitalism: the manipulation of rules for private gain. While the SEC ultimately pursued enforcement, Brewer’s defense strategy reveals how corporate actors view regulation not as a moral or ethical boundary, but as a procedural game to be won. This is the practice of “legal minimalism”—doing just enough to create a facade of compliance while gutting the law’s protective intent.

Brewer’s primary defense was that he had gone through the “Rule 144 process” with his broker, Morgan Stanley. He argued this process, which governs the sale of restricted securities, served as a “gatekeeping function” that made his trades proper.

The court dismissed this argument as irrelevant. The Rule 144 process is designed to ensure compliance with a different, unrelated provision of securities law; it has absolutely nothing to do with clearing a trade based on insider information.

More damningly, the court noted that the Rule 144 clearance was completed on November 30, 2016. Brewer did not receive the critical, non-public information about the “death spiral” offering until nearly two weeks later. His attempt to use prior procedural approval as a shield for future misconduct is a classic example of how corporate players exploit complexity. They create a paper trail of superficial compliance to obscure their true intent, relying on the opacity of financial regulations to deflect blame. In this worldview, the spirit of the law is an inconvenience, and only the letter—selectively interpreted—matters.

Profit-Maximization at All Costs

The Copsync case is a clinical study in the ideology of profit-maximization. Every action taken by Brewer was geared toward one goal: protecting and increasing his personal wealth, irrespective of legal duties or ethical considerations. His expletive-laden text message to “Clear that [expletive]!!” was not just a command; it was the raw, unfiltered voice of a system that prioritizes financial extraction above all else.

This mindset is not an aberration. It is the logical endpoint of a capitalist framework that incentivizes such behavior. Brewer, a sophisticated financial professional with Series 7 and Series 66 licenses and executive education from Harvard and Wharton, knew exactly what he was doing. He had received compliance manuals explicitly prohibiting trading on material, non-public information. He understood that as a consultant, he was a “temporary insider” with a fiduciary duty to shareholders. He chose to ignore it.

The incentive structure was simple: acting on the information guaranteed a financial gain (or, in this case, the avoidance of a certain loss), while abstaining offered no personal reward. In a system where shareholder value and personal net worth are the ultimate metrics of success, the fiduciary duty to an anonymous mass of public investors becomes an abstraction. The $35,178 Brewer saved for himself was a tangible, immediate reward. The integrity of the market was a distant, theoretical concept. This is the brutal calculus of late-stage capitalism, where ethics are a liability and profit is the only rational motive.

The Economic Fallout: A Zero-Sum Game

The financial consequences of Brewer’s actions were direct and measurable. He avoided a loss of $35,178. But this money did not simply evaporate from the ether. In the zero-sum game of a rigged market, his gain was transferred directly from other investors. The people who bought his 100,000 shares in early January 2017 did so without the knowledge that the company was on the verge of a “death spiral.” They were trading in good faith, based on publicly available information, while Brewer was playing with a stacked deck.

When the stock price collapsed by 32.5% in a single day, it was these unsuspecting buyers, along with every other public shareholder, who paid the price for his deception. The economic fallout extends beyond the immediate financial losses. Each case of insider trading erodes public trust in the market. It reinforces a deeply cynical and largely accurate belief that the game is rigged in favor of the wealthy and the connected.

This erosion of trust has profound economic consequences. It can discourage ordinary people from investing, depriving the market of capital and hindering economic growth. It pushes people toward riskier, more speculative assets in a desperate search for a level playing field. Brewer’s actions, while netting him a relatively small sum in the grand scheme of Wall Street, represent a tear in the social fabric of the market—a demonstration that the rules of fair play are a polite fiction for those on the outside.

The PR Machine: The Strategic Use of Legitimacy

Corporate misconduct is often cloaked in a carefully constructed image of legitimacy. In the case of Copsync and Jack Brewer, the public relations strategy was embedded in his very role. By hiring a former professional athlete with an impressive educational background, Copsync was purchasing credibility. Brewer was contracted to be a “public facing figure,” a human symbol of trustworthiness designed to inspire confidence in investors and the public.

This use of a celebrity endorser as a corporate insider is a sophisticated form of spin. It preemptively builds a reservoir of goodwill that can make subsequent misconduct seem out of character or unbelievable. The strategy leverages the public’s trust in a familiar face to obscure the riskier, less savory aspects of a company’s operations.

Even after the misconduct, the spin continues in the form of legal maneuvering. Brewer’s defense, which centered on his supposed compliance with the “Rule 144 process,” was an attempt to reframe a substantive violation as a procedural misunderstanding. This is a common tactic: using the dense complexity of financial regulations to create a smokescreen. By pointing to a technical process, the aim is to suggest that due diligence was performed, thereby recasting an act of calculated greed as a bureaucratic mix-up. This is about manufacturing plausible deniability.

Wealth Disparity & Corporate Greed

At its heart, this case is a story of greed and the vast disparities inherent in our economic system. Jack Brewer was a member of a privileged class of insiders. As part of his compensation, he was granted 200,000 shares of restricted Copsync stock, a form of wealth creation entirely inaccessible to the average person. This stock, given to him for his services, became the very tool he used to exploit the public market.

The $35,178 in losses that Brewer avoided may seem minor in the context of multi-billion dollar Wall Street scandals, but its significance lies in the ease with which it was secured. For millions of Americans, $35,000 is more than half a year’s salary, a life-changing sum that could represent a down payment on a home, a child’s college fund, or a secure retirement. For a corporate insider like Brewer, it was an effortless gain, secured with a single text message based on secret information.

This is the machinery of wealth disparity in action. The system provides insiders with equity and information, creating opportunities for low-risk, high-reward financial extraction. The gains from these actions are privatized, flowing directly into the pockets of the already wealthy. The losses, however, are socialized, spread across the countless anonymous investors who make up the public market. It is a chilling illustration of a system that is not designed to create wealth for all, but to protect and expand the wealth of a select few.

Global Parallels: A Pattern of Predation

While the names and companies change, the pattern of predation seen in the Copsync case is a universal feature of global financial markets under capitalism. The story is a familiar archetype enacted time and again across the world: a company faces financial distress, its insiders become aware of the impending doom, and they use that privileged information to quietly exit their positions before the public announcement sends the stock price into a freefall.

The playbook is always the same. Insiders are granted access to confidential information under the guise of fiduciary duty. They watch from the inside as the company’s prospects dim. Then, at the critical moment before the information becomes public, they sell their shares, transferring their inevitable losses to an unsuspecting public. It is a predictable cycle of exploitation, enabled by a system that inherently creates information asymmetry.

The case of Jack Brewer and Copsync is a textbook example. It serves as a microcosm of a global phenomenon where the rules of fair play are systematically suspended for those with the right connections. This pattern undermines the very premise of a free and fair market, proving that for many insiders, the stock market is not an engine of investment but a venue for extraction.

Corporate Accountability Fails the Public

On its face, the court’s ruling against Jack Brewer looks like a victory for corporate accountability. The SEC investigated and won a decisive legal battle. However, this perspective misses the larger failure of the system. Accountability, in this context, is entirely reactive. The regulations and enforcement actions did not prevent the crime; they merely punished it after the fact. The harm to the market and its investors had already been done.

The system is designed to catch predators after the hunt, not to protect the herd beforehand. By the time Brewer sold his shares, the public was already vulnerable. The financial safeguards in place were either circumvented or proven irrelevant. The entire episode highlights a regulatory framework that is perpetually one step behind, relying on lengthy investigations and litigation to clean up a mess that a more proactive system could have prevented.

Furthermore, accountability was narrowly focused on a single individual. While Brewer was found liable, the case file speaks little of the corporate environment at Copsync that led to its near-collapse, or the role of the financial institutions that facilitated the trades. True accountability would address the systemic conditions that incentivize and enable such misconduct. Instead, the system isolates one “bad apple,” leaving the orchard’s diseased roots untouched. For many corporations, the risk of a civil penalty is simply calculated as a potential cost of doing business, a small price to pay for the immense benefits of operating in a system tilted in their favor.

Pathways for Reform & Consumer Advocacy

The flaws exposed by the Copsync scandal are the result of policy choices that can be reversed. Meaningful reform is possible, but it requires a fundamental shift away from a reactive model of enforcement toward a proactive system of prevention.

First, regulatory oversight must be strengthened for companies exhibiting clear signs of financial distress. Instead of waiting for a crisis, regulators should be empowered with tools to increase scrutiny of companies like Copsync that are on the verge of failing to meet stock exchange listing requirements. This could include mandatory disclosures and stricter monitoring of insider trading activity.

Second, the case demonstrates the inadequacy of existing trading clearances. A “cooling-off” period should be mandated for all corporate insiders, prohibiting them from trading for a significant period after they are exposed to any material, non-public information. Brewer’s ability to trade just days after receiving “death spiral” information, while claiming a weeks-old clearance as a defense, shows a clear loophole that must be closed.

Finally, consumer advocacy is a crucial lever for change. Public pressure, directed at lawmakers and regulatory bodies like the SEC, is essential to building the political will for reform. By supporting organizations that fight for market fairness and financial transparency, individuals can contribute to a collective movement that demands a system where corporate accountability is not just a slogan, but a reality. The power to change the rules lies in the public’s willingness to demand it.

Conclusion: The System Worked as Intended

It is tempting to view the story of Jack Brewer and Copsync as a case of a system that failed. An individual broke the rules, betrayed trust, and was caught. But this interpretation misses the more unsettling truth. In many ways, the system worked exactly as it was designed. It presented a rational actor with a set of incentives, and he followed them to their logical conclusion.

The dominant ideology of neoliberal capitalism, which prioritizes profit and shareholder value above all else, created the conditions for this outcome. It fostered a culture where a financial professional could view his fiduciary duty as an obstacle to be overcome rather than a principle to be honored. It built a market structure with inherent information imbalances that are ripe for exploitation. Brewer’s actions were not a deviation from the norms of this system; they were an embodiment of them.

The real harm, therefore, is not the $35,178 that was effectively transferred from the public to an insider. The real harm is the corrosive effect on public trust. This case, like countless others, tells the average person that the market is a rigged game, a private club for the wealthy and connected. It is a story of betrayal that confirms the deepest cynicisms about our economic order, and in doing so, it chips away at the very foundation of our shared prosperity.

Frivolous or Serious Lawsuit?

The lawsuit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission was unequivocally serious and legitimate. The strength of the SEC’s case is demonstrated by the fact that the court granted its motion for partial summary judgment. This is a decisive legal action that only occurs when the evidence presented by one party is so overwhelming that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact,” and that party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

The court’s 31-page opinion meticulously details the undisputed evidence against Brewer, from the signed confidentiality agreements to the explicit warnings he received about the “death spiral” offering, culminating in his documented text messages ordering the sale of his stock. The ruling confirms that the SEC’s claims were not just plausible but were substantiated by a mountain of incontrovertible evidence. This was not a frivolous case…. in fact it was a necessary enforcement action against a clear and flagrant violation of securities law designed to protect the integrity of the market and the American public.

SEC vs Brewer Group & Copsyc Download

For a press release of this story, please click on this link on the SEC’s website: https://www.sec.gov/enforcement-litigation/litigation-releases/lr-26322

💡 Explore Corporate Misconduct by Category

Corporations harm people every day — from wage theft to pollution. Learn more by exploring key areas of injustice.

💀 Product Safety Violations — When companies risk lives for profit.
🌿 Environmental Violations — Pollution, ecological collapse, and unchecked greed.
💼 Labor Exploitation — Wage theft, worker abuse, and unsafe conditions.
🛡️ Data Breaches & Privacy Abuses — Misuse and mishandling of personal information.
💵 Financial Fraud & Corruption — Lies, scams, and executive impunity.

NOTE:

This website is facing massive amounts of headwind trying to procure the lawsuits relating to corporate misconduct. We are being pimp-slapped by a quadruple whammy:

The Trump regime's reversal of the laws & regulations meant to protect us is making it so victims are no longer filing lawsuits for shit which was previously illegal.
Donald Trump's defunding of regulatory agencies led to the frequency of enforcement actions severely decreasing. What's more, the quality of the enforcement actions has also plummeted.
The GOP's insistence on cutting the healthcare funding for millions of Americans in order to give their billionaire donors additional tax cuts has recently shut the government down. This government shut down has also impacted the aforementioned defunded agencies capabilities to crack down on evil-doers. Donald Trump has since threatened to make these agency shutdowns permanent on account of them being "democrat agencies".
My access to the LexisNexis legal research platform got revoked. This isn't related to Trump or anything, but it still hurt as I'm being forced to scrounge around public sources to find legal documents now. Sadge.

All four of these factors are severely limiting my ability to access stories of corporate misconduct.

Due to this, I have temporarily decreased the amount of articles published everyday from 5 down to 3, and I will also be publishing articles from previous years as I was fortunate enough to download a butt load of EPA documents back in 2022 and 2023 to make YouTube videos with.... This also means that you'll be seeing many more environmental violation stories going forward :3

Thank you for your attention to this matter,

Aleeia (owner and publisher of www.evilcorporations.com)

Also, can we talk about how ICE has a $170 billion annual budget, while the EPA-- which protects the air we breathe and water we drink-- barely clocks $4 billion? Just something to think about....